MORE UPDATES on Baby Veronica and the Evil Christie Maldonado

The
public, media and adoption reformists focused the blame between Dusten
Brown (who was labeled a dead beat dad who signed his rights away) and Matt and
Melanie Capobianco, rightly accused of dragging the Baby Veronica case on and
on and not just simply letting the child be with her father who loved her,
wanted her and was perfectly capable of raising her...

Yet,
throughout it all Christie Maldonado, Veronica's mother, was spared the
controversy, barely ever mentioned in the media except as “the natural mother.”
She was protected and spared all blame and culpability, unjustifiably in my
sole opinion. She is the unspoken of elephant in the middle of this fiasco that
the public, the media and even we in adoption reform have left unscathed. And
it is Christie Maldonado, Baby Veronica's natural mother, in my opinion who is
THE most culpable person in this debacle

The Capobiancos were dead wrong, but they never would have
been in the picture, much less able to succeed had it not been for the choices
made and reaffirmed every step of the way by Christie Maldinado.Christie chose the
Capobiancos, and not just encouraged them, she insisted that they never give up
relentlessly,
giving them justification personally and publicly. With her on their side, they
were not taking a child away form her father, they were upholding the never
wavering wishes of the child's mother.

The Capbiancos motivation
was to have a baby girl. Christie’s motivation was to USE them to keep
her child from the child's father. Pure evil.

It
was Christie, the natural mother, who set the entire fiasco in motion. It was she
and she alone who decided on adoption of a child who had a father. She alone
put the whole adoption plan in motion through deceit and less than honest and
open communication or informed consent to Dusten. She disregarded him from the
start and then blamed him for not being involved. She was less than honest in
her intent, leading Dusten to believe he was signing custody over to her,
without revealing her intent to place the child one she had him sign off on his
rights. She tricked him!! This was an evil and immoral thing to do
and showed from the start of the process her lack of ability to put the needs
of her child over her anger at this man she created this innocent baby with.

Christie
sent Dusten a text message asking if he would rather pay child support or
relinquish his parental rights. He responded via text message that he
relinquished his rights, not ever hearing one word about any plan for adoption,
he assumed he was allowing Christie to have sole custody, as opposed to joint
custody.

Dusten
was totally unaware that months prior to the baby's birth, Christie had begun
to work with an adoption attorney to place the child with Matt and Melanie
Capobianco of South Carolina. Although Oklahoma law requires that
when the case involves a child of Indian decent, the tribe be notified,
Maldonado's attorney misspelled Brown's name and provided an incorrect date of
birth, so the tribe was not put on notice of the proposed adoption. After receiving
permission from Oklahoma authorities, based in part on the identification of
the child as Hispanic instead of Native American, the Capobiancos took the
child to South Carolina.

Christie
attended every court proceeding aligned with and supported the Capobiancos, and
went as far as telling "the state court that she
would nullify her consent to the child’s adoption if Veronica were not to live
with the Capobiancos."

Even
those of us within the adoption community who are as far as we can be
philosophically from the pro-adoptionists and the Industry … were so focused on
solely blaming the Capobiancos and so wont to ever see a birthmother as
anything but the wounded party - as she too often is - that we unintentionally
have painted a not well-intentioned, innocent, coerced mother
with the same brush we use for those whose vulnerabilities are exploited by the
adoption machine.

Christie
Maldonado, of all people, could have used whatever leverage she had to help
resolve this case through a mediated open adoption or at the very least a
demand for visitation, Instead she - like the Capobiancos and the law - saw the
child as a piece of merchandise to dispute ownership of.

She
of all people, as a MOTHER, should have and could have fought for her CHILD's
best interest over that of all the adults. Instead she orchestrated the
battle and acted throughout to destroy the possibility of a reunification of a
child and her kin, her heritage and a father who loved and wanted her, acting
like far too many divorcing couples who use children as weapons in a perceived
war. She was angry mother in a divorce and she used the Capobiancos
to do HER dirty work of taking her child from Dusten! And she
used the Capobiancos to do her dirty for her and pay all the legal fees.

It
is hard for me to say these things – to point a finger of blame at a “sister”
birthmother who “lost” a child to adoption, but no generalizations can be made
about any group of people. There are good and bad in every race, religion and
there are good and bad adoptive parents and good and bad birth parents.

I
recognize and award adoptive parents who do the right thing in order to
encourage more to do so. And I recognize when a mother does the WRONG thing, as
is the case here. I am able to admit that there are some mothers who are
incapable of making safe, healthy choices for the well being of their children,
often because of substance abuse or mental illness. I encourage extended family
care in such cases, but to ignore the reality and claim or believe ALL mothers
and fathers should have custody of their children, is dogmatic and inherently
wrong and makes anyone saying it lose all credibility and paints adoption
reformers as stringent anti-adoptionists who defend mothers right or wrong.

Loving,
caring parents who are capable should maintain their rights and that was the
case here with Dusten Brown. Dusten was duped by Veronica’s mother who put her
anger above her child’s best interested and insisted she be raised by strangers
rather than her own blood kin. And that started and ended this case for
Veronica. It was what encouraged the Capobiancos to continue to pursue no
matter what and influenced all the court decisions.

Where
was court ordered mediation, as is done in divorces and custody battles? Where
was a guardian ad litem to represent the child's interest throughout this or
any disputed adoption? Where was court ordered visitation or slow transition
for any of the transfers of this innocent, tiny human being tossed about like a
ship in a storm, hither and yon, calling different sets of people Mommy and
Daddy so many times in her young life, and suffering abandonment upon
abandonment? Will she ever be able to trust again? Where were her interests in
any of this?

Christie, mother of two other children, orchestrated this cruel circus every step of the way from her very first deceit
to Dusten, to choosing the Capobiancos, standing by them to this day, and
publically slandering her child’s father. I say shame on Christie and some
stones should be cast where they need to be. Bad mother of
year award goes to Christie Maldonado for putting her anger before the
best interest of her child, for deceiving and berating her child's father, and
now, not satisfied with ruining her daughter's life, taking her from her loving father and sister and grandparents, she is trying to remove protection for all native American children!

UPDATE 7/28: "Feminists" - women who have NEVER supported mothers in crisis who are pressured and coerced to relinquish their children or have them taken wrongfully... women who have never supported adoptee equality, are now supporting this BE-ATCH, Christie Maldonado who acted in ways that are counter the the well-being of Veronica and her two other children. These are people who BLINDLY support any mother who fights a father over custody.

UPDATE 7/28: The Notorious "Fat Lady" has yet to utter her swan song....HOPE remains fro veronica and her RIGHTFUL Blood Kin FAMILY as the case goes BACK TO COURT!!

20 comments:

The author of this article is so uneducated on the facts that they spell the Capobianos name AND Dustens name wrong. "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"

First this poor child has to deal with the fact that her own mother insisted on giving her away while keeping her two older half-siblings. That alone will be very painful to deal with and to work through. Then she also has to somehow come to accept that her own mother did everything she could to make sure that the natural father who loved and wanted her would not be able to raise her. I agree that Ms. Maldonado is the evildoer here.

Also, if Christy is able to revoke her consent to the adoption if the Copabiancos don't raise Veronica, then why can't Dusten revoke his TPR?

To Robin: the answer is because he has no parental rights. He can't revoke his consent if his consent is not required for adoption. Like all other men, Dustin must live with the consequences of taking off during the pregnancy. And if he is so heartbroken, he should start working on his fatherly relationship with his 3 other children born out of wedlock, including the one that his baby mama had to sue him for child support over. CNO picked the wrong time to stand by her man.

Dear Robin: he can't simply revoke his consent because the Supreme Court held his consent is irrelevant. Like all other men, he must live with the consequences of his actions. But take heart: this frees him up to focus on his 3 other illegitimate children, including the girl whose mother had to sue him for child support. CNO picked the wrong time to stand by her man.

Sophia - your comment is a perfect example of someone so blinded by hate they cannot read the words that are written or understand them.

Robin very clearly said: "if Christy is able to revoke her consent to the adoption..."

She was VERY CLEARLY speaking of CHRISTIE revoking consent, the person who threatened in court to do that, not Dustin.

This means yo obviously do not understand the fact that Christie TRICKED Dustin into signing away his rights and he moved IMMEDIATELY to revoke that once he found out, and moved immediately to stop the adoption.

You, like most of the public have your mind made up that adopters are always wrong and natural parents are automatically bad people for even considering adoption -- except of course for Christie Maldonado! You mind is so firmly set you cannot even put the best interests of a child first.

No child should be raised by non-blood related strangers when they have any blood-kin willing and capable to do so. PERIOD! To keep a child from blood kin who want her and are able to fight for her and provide her is just CRUEL and selfish. And you can try all you want to slander Dustin - he is a good man who never displayed any unfit parenting behavior and should never have been denied his constitutional right to raise his daughter!

Veronica is being denied her God-given right to her blood kin for no reason other than Christie's vindictiveness.

If every parent's right to raise his or her own child was based on having made no past mistakes, then I don't think there would be anyone in the country qualified to raise their own biological offspring. We would all have to be given up for adoption. I doubt under those standards if even William and Kate would qualify to raise the royal baby!

Being adopted is not the same as being raised in one's natural family. It is not a simple matter of "oh, it doesn't matter because the APs will love the child just as much as the bio-parents." Veronica has a right to be raised in her own family, in her own race and her own culture. The only exception to this would be if there is a long history of abuse. Dusten's relationship with Veronica has shown nothing but love and care. I am insulted that anyone thinks biological kinship should just be written off because there is someone else who WANTS to raise a child, and 'might' be able to love him or her as much as a natural parent.

Sophia, where's your proof that he's got three kids plus Veronica? (lies!!) He's got one other daughter and her mother is his ex-wife. So much for four "illegitimate" kids. stop with the slander!! Pathetic because it's all you've got to argue your point with.

Amen, Mirah. You've said it all. I am all for mother's rights, but not when they deny a child to grow up among his or her own kind. What she did is inexcusable. BTW, what is the name of the a) lawyer who tricked Brown without making clear what he was signing when he revoked his rights as a father; and b) What is the name of the agency who perpetuated this false adoption? As you have so clearly pointed out, adoption is no longer for children who need homes, but people who want children. No matter what.

I pray that Dusten Brown's stay can reach the heart of Justice Roberts, but given how he skirted Irish law to have Irish-blooded babies born in South American, I do not have much hope.

Yes, Lorraine, it smells rotten. I think this article spells it out. http://somebodyschildren.com/2013/05/08/feminists-and-the-baby-veronica-case/

Paul Clement sounds scary. Arizona's immigration laws violate human rights and separates families and communities (1.6 million people have been deported under Obama - that's a record). He wants to eat into Indian economy with his own casinos. He wants to deny same-sex marriages equal benefits, etc.

And because of him, this little girl is being stripped of what she was born with and what belongs to her - her family who love her tremendously.

First, a few more FACTS for those apparently ignorant of them: Dusten has ONE other child, from a previous marriage, and his ex says he has been a great father to their daughter. Christie, on the other hand, has two children from a previous marriage/relationship where she LOST custody of them and was behind in her child support. Also, Dusten was tricked into signing over his rights in a MALL PARKING LOT, and since it was not done legally, was revoked.

Also, the attorney (his name escapes me at the moment, but he's written books about adopting, I believe), and the agency, Nightlight, are implicated in at least one other adoption where the child's Native blood was ignored, FEDERAL LAW (ICWA) was ignored, the child whisked out of Oklahoma to, again, South Carolina, before anyone could be alerted. There are some interesting articles at Indian Country Today Media Network that some of you should read...one does mention the attorney, and it also has the facts on the birth mother. She was also behind in her mortgage, had a relative paying her car payments...suddenly, she's flush, driving a new SUV, Xmas gifts for the kids she doesn't have custody of, etc. Oklahoma needs to investigate her, as she has received well more than the $1000 in gifts allowed to an adopter...rumour has it they gave her $10,000 on top of 'expenses'...yet, did they pay for the medical costs? Nope. Oklahoma medicaid did. So, the taxpayers paid for her to have the child while she lived it up otherwise on the Capobianco's dime, who did so all to gladly. Also, despite a SECOND gag order, the Capobiancos are again taking to the TV waves and making a media circus of this. On facebook, visit keepveronicahome or standing our ground for Veronica Brown.ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act, is a FEDERAL LAW that states that if a Native American child is to be removed from a home (removed, not spirited away and sold to the highest bidder), they are to be placed with a capable relative or Native foster home. This was not only ignored in this case, but Maldonado gave false information to keep it from being part of the equation. FEDERAL LAW. From the beginning, she and the adoptors BROKE FEDERAL LAW.

The way the adults carry on in these cases is shameful. Nobody considers the feelings of the child. It's all politics, racism, and dogmatic positions from both the point of adoptive and natural parents. What matters is love and attachment, not DNA. The actions of the birth mother in this case proves that. I have no doubt that the C's love Veronica, and I have no doubt that her father loves her. As a baby and toddler, she bonded with the people who raised her, and they bonded with her. That people so easily brush off the trauma of that broken attachment, for both Veronica and the C's, is callous and stupid beyond belief. Now, Veronica is also bonded with her natural father, and he with her, so more trauma will result from another broken attachment. It's not that Veronica doesn't have THREE parents who love her and are willing and capable of caring for her, it's that ATTACHMENT MATTERS and she's been attached to all three. I was adopted and later had to go back to my birth mother. When I was 16, I returned (my choice) to my adopted mother and her new husband who became the best father to me that anyone could ever have. While with my birth mother, I developed love for her, too. Humans are like that. We get ATTACHED and learn to love those we live with. That said, I never thought of her as my real mother, sperm and egg notwithstanding. Being torn away from people I loved really scared me. On the outside I was always outgoing and appeared happy but inside I battled depression and a sense of not belonging. It may be not rational but that's how kids' brains and emotions process these kinds of events, adults and their opinions be damned.

And, yes, damn all of you who think you know what's best. Once Veronica was placed with the C's, right or wrong, she should have been left there. Maybe that's the case with her dad, now, too. Maybe there should be shared custody because humans have fucked this up so royally that it can NEVER be made right. NEVER. None of the rationalizations from either camp make a damn bit of difference in the heart of a child, Scared is scared and it never goes away. You just have to suck it up and learn to live with it. The aspect that I find most disturbing in this case is the Native American angle. Veronica is NOT INDN, no matter how much people like to apply a "one drop rule". Yes, she has a tiny fraction of INDN but she has other DNA as well, and more of it. Shall we settle these cases based upon this kind of racism? Do a DNA test and place children with whomever most closely matches that profile? Do you see how absurd that is? For the Cherokee Nation to be using this child as a political football is downright evil. It's one thing to advocate for the rights of a birth father - that is legitimate - but it's outright fraud and racism to claim a child as INDN when she is not, and not that her racial makeup should matter one iota. Would her father's interests be any less if were Japanese? No. This is simply a battle between people who have parented a child, who all love her, and everyone is a loser because of the bad adoption system we have in this country. Her father never should have declined to pay child support. That was his original mistake. Claiming he was "tricked" is also dishonest. He gave up his parental rights. When you do that, what happens with your child is no longer under your control. I would not give up the rights to any of my dogs, so I cannot fathom giving up the rights to my child! Then, the C's also made mistakes by not working with Veronica's father who was not going away. They may have all worked out joint custody if they could have put aside their differences. That would be the only way for all parties, especially Veronica, to avoid broken hearts. As a result of the abuse of the Indian Child Welfare Act in this case, I will join those who are working to have it repealed. I have always been 100% empathetic with Native Peoples on this issue but no more. Veronica is not INDN, one drop notwithstanding. She is a pawn in a political fight. Sickening.

I am sorry that happened to you. Sixteen is much too old to be expected to make such a change. I agree with what you say ....EXCEPT:

This adoption should never have happened in the first place. There was deceit and fraud perpetrated against Dusten Brown to obtain his signature and the tribal council was never properly notified.

Further, once the adoptive parents knew that the child they were trying to adopt had a father who was willing and ABLE to care for her, who loved her and was fighting for her - they should have let her go THEN when she was just a tiny baby...not let this drag out for all these years. At that point in time she had FAMILY and she had strangers fighting for her.

I find this entire tragedy so disturbing. As an adoptive parent, we adopted two older children for which all parents were deceased and extended family was unwilling to be custodial for their deceased relatives children. The remaining relatives were just not in a position to assume responsibility but were asked and do keep in touch with our daughters. There are MANY available children both in the US and world-wide that are legitimately adoptable because they DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER RELATIVES WHATSOEVER WILLING TO PARENT THEM. The only other choice for these children is to remain in state care until release. In these legitimate cases adoption should be respected and encouraged, I call it child-centered adoption. One can proceed and find out what the true facts of the child's background are to assure that the adoption is of a child WITHOUT OTHER FAMILY SUPPORT FOR THEM. I have done it. This Sometimes there are a multitude of problems that keep relatives from supporting children beyond economic issues. Many times there are health, work, legal entanglements and other relationship issues that do not permit placement of children with relatives. To me, just one person, there is no reason for this bartering over children and it should be stopped. THERE ARE SO MANY CHILDREN WITHOUT ANYONE THAT NEED HOMES! Anyone willing to parent a child truly without any active birth family can find one and with time and effort. Children that can attach and become a member of a family can be located. If one is willing to invest time and effort in finding the right child who can be successful with you, just look beyond gender, race and age and you CAN find the truly available AND manageable. Only children without legitimate family willing to care for them should be adopted. Adoption should be the alternative to growing up in state care.

Auto Magnet: CLICK IMAGE

4x4 stickers available: CLICK IMAGE

World Hunger

"Open adoption and open records are important byways. But they are not the most compelling route. Family preservation is."Dr. Randolph Severson, The Soul of Family Preservation

“Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year . . .”The Special Rapporteur, United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003.

As defined by International law/UNCRC and the Hague Convention, International law says that Family Preservation should come first, domestic adoption second, and international adoption as a last resort. What we have today is the complete opposite where international adoption is used as the go to solution in separating children from their biological families.

"Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery."

UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption.

"...overseas adoption is a kind of child abuse by the state. ....Overseas adoption is the forced expulsion of children from the society where they are supposed to live. In this sense, overseas adoption is a social violence against children. As humans, we exist as part of a gigantic ecosystem. The existence of the biological parents of adoptees can never be annihilated nor denied."Overseas adoption is a forced separation of children from their natural ecosystems, as well as a way of forcing them into compulsory unity with settings different from and unnatural to their genetic and original social systems. Through this forced separation and compulsory unity, not only the adoptees, but also their biological parents, adoptive parents and their family members suffer trauma."Pastor Kim Do-hyun, director of KoRoot

According to the United Nations, children separated from their parents during war or natural disasters should not be adopted. “Even if both their parents are dead,” reads UNICEF’s statement on intercountry adoption, “the chances of finding living relatives, a community and home to return to after the conflict subsides exist. Thus, such children should not be considered for intercountry adoption.” Sept. 9, 2013 (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

"To focus on these children without focusing on their families or communities thus becomes an ignoble hypocrisy; as if to say, 'give us your huddled masses–but only if they are cute children and can be indoctrinated from an early age'.” Daniel Ibn Zayd

Reform CPS

Mirah Riben

Profile

Follow by Email

FAQs

Family Preservation

See Also"What is Family Preservation""Children have rights. These rights are laid down essentially in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children.

"Children and their biological parents have a right to respect for their family life."Adoption: at what cost? 2007 Terre des hommes – child relief, Lausanne, Switzerland

"Every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible. UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it."UNICEF

The Uniform Adoption Act calls for the protection of "minor children against unnecessary separation from their birth parents."

“Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year . . .” United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003.

"If ... the best interests of the child is to be the determining factor in child custody cases ... persons seeking babies to adopt might profitably frequent grocery stores and snatch babies from carts when the parent is looking the other way. Then, if custody proceedings can be delayed long enough, they can assert that they have a nicer home, a superior education, a better job or whatever, and that the best interests of the child are with the baby snatchers. Children of parents living in public housing or other conditions deemed less affluent and children of single parents might be considered particularly fair game." -- Justice James Heiple, Illinois Supreme Court in the "Baby Richard" case.

Article 7, U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child"The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Article 8"Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity."

Article 9"States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests."-------------------------------------------------------------------------On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).They include:• Article 12. - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, FAMILY, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.• Article 16(3) - The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.• Article 25(1) - Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.